Students’ informal peer feedback networks

The nature and significance of students’ informal peer feedback networks is an under-explored area. This paper offers the findings of a longitudinal investigation of the informal peer feedback networks of a cohort of student teachers [n=105] across the three years of a UK primary education degree programme. It tracked the dynamic nature of these networks through the use of Social Network Analysis and gained qualitative insights into the significance of informal peer feedback through diaries and interviews of a smaller student group [n=12]. The research found that students were actively engaged in informal peer feedback networks from their first year of study. Where some students found strength within feedback ‘cliques’, others preferred the fluidity of relationships that were based upon identified needs and changing circumstances. The inter-connections between students’ personal (ego) networks offered access to information flow across and beyond the cohort. Identified levels of informal peer feedback ranged from proof-reading aspects of assignment completion to the development of conceptual understanding that drew upon shared analysis of tutor feedback, assignment briefs and assessment criteria. While aspects of informal peer feedback built upon examples from tutor-led scenarios, trust and reciprocity were fundamental to the success of these informal peer feedback relationships

"Clear in advance": a case study of first year undergraduate students’ engagement with assessment criteria

The National Student Survey asks whether assessment criteria are made "clear in advance." Most HEIs place assessment criteria for assignments in course guides given to first year undergraduate students on arrival. While this provides transparency, are publication and distribution alone sufficient to ensure clarity? The social constructivist approach taken by O’Donovan et al (2008) recognises the need for engagement and interaction in learning. This paper examines students’ understanding of criteria, set before they arrive at university, and how it might be enhanced through interaction and engagement. Interest in criteria seldom occurs on arrival at university when students are overwhelmed with course materials. Criteria may appear more "fuzzy" than "sharp" (Sadler 1989), particularly if considered out of context. Students’ desire to understand criteria is pragmatic, coming prior to assignment completion, when seeking their precise meaning to improve submission quality and grades (University of Greenwich 2009). Rust (2002) reminds us that simply "having explicit criteria" does not guarantee that students’ work will improve. Similarly, anecdotal evidence from new tutors suggests that criteria become clearer through engagement and debate during assignment marking and moderation processes. If new tutors gain understanding contextualised engagement and interaction, is it appropriate to expect novice students to complete an assignment without such experiences? Should students be passive receivers of criteria in course guides or become actively involved in meaning-making through their creation or development? Engaging students through "descriptive statements and exemplars" (Sadler 1989) enables interpretation of criteria in a given context, but does this lead to instrumental approaches resulting in "criteria compliance" (Torrance 2007)? Hounsell et al (2008) suggest an active approach throughout the assessment process, with an ongoing dialogue of guidance and feedback which would necessarily include criteria. Nicol (2009) goes further by stating that joint development of criteria by students and tutors through formative assessment experiences ensure that appropriate language is used and shared. Such an approach would involve and engage students actively to support understanding and provide clarity, but is it achievable with first year students within the strictures of higher education course requirements? This paper reports on a study of first year undergraduate student engagement with assessment criteria by examining the first and second year of operation of a newly designed blended-learning course, for cohorts of 120 students, within an initial teacher training programme. Before students entered the course three summative assessment points were identified, their assignments developed and criteria set and published according to university practice. Formative assessment points during course sought to engage students in the creation and application of criteria. This experience was then applied to summative assessment criteria. Students worked together to analyse assignments and criteria and became actively involved in developing success criteria. Questionnaires and output data from the first cohort, suggested that students’ understanding of criteria and their consequent grades may have benefitted from this approach. The addition of semi-structured interviews with students from the second cohort will seek to determine whether this assumption is accurate

Editorial: Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 10 (1)

This special edition of Practitioner Research in Higher Education emanates from papers presented at the 5th International Assessment in Higher Education Conference (https://aheconference.com/ahe-conference-2015) held in Birmingham, England, during June 2015. The biennial conference brought together practitioners and researchers to share their work and discuss current issues; aiding our understanding and the development of practice of assessment in higher education. The wide range of assessment areas explored at the conference included institutional change, diversity and inclusion, programme level assessment, students’ experiences of and responses to assessment and the assessment literacy of students and tutors. Master classes and keynote presentations by acknowledged experts in the field were complemented by papers and interactive posters from delegates. This provided a wealth of evidence that explored issues at national, institutional and grass-roots levels across many disciplines and phases. Presenters challenged current practices while offering developments to assessment policy and practice that would benefit higher education learners, leaders and teachers. International commonalities and variations in assessment were brought to the fore through the work of colleagues from Ireland, USA, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Australia, The Netherlands, Hong Kong, South Africa, Denmark, Vietnam, Spain, Sweden, Croatia, Norway, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Japan, Austria, New Zealand, Belgium and England. The range and diversity of the conference’s discussion continues within the 17 articles presented here

Voxur: A new dimension on feedback?

In February 2011 student representative volunteers from the Student Union at the University of Greenwich (SUUG) led an awareness raising campaign called ‘Focus on Feedback’. The representatives engaged fellow students in discussion about their use of assessment feedback both in their own Schools and as they passed strategically placed stands at each of the three university campuses. At the ‘Focus on Feedback’ stands the representatives encouraged use of the Educational Development Unit’s (EDU) Voxur unit for students to provide their views on the purpose and use of feedback. The self-managed unit is designed to capture short video clip vox-pop responses to questions posed via a pre-recorded talking head. In this context students were asked to respond to six key questions developed by SUUG/EDU to gain greater insight into National Student Survey outcomes which, both nationally and locally, have consistently proved weakest in respect of feedback. Forty students recorded video responses to the questions and these were analysed to identify emerging themes. This presentation reports on the use of the Voxur unit and emerging feedback themes. The self-contained Voxur unit provided a useful, if costly, method for collecting vox-pop data. Its use in this study identified the value of immediate video-based surveys of student views by students as means of gaining greater understanding of their perspectives. The students’ videoed comments afforded SUUG/EDU with additional awareness of the students’ viewpoints. They also raised questions about current practices. All students recognised the value of feedback to highlight strengths and weaknesses and to enable improvement. In line with Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet’s (2007) work, this was most evident to students when inter-related assessment items were used across programmes of study. Students appreciated the benefit of peer discussion and feedback to supplement their interaction with tutors (as Falchikov, 2007). However, difficulties in forging relationships with markers, who were often unknown to them or appeared anonymous due to automated or electronic feedback systems, lessened the possibility of growth through dialogue; an aspect identified by Nicol (2010) as essential to effective practice. The Voxur unit has provided a new dimension to our understanding of feedback and, although the findings from a small sample cannot be generalised, the vox pop approach has raised previously unconsidered questions about students’ perspectives which will now be considered when reviewing feedback practices

Learning from the students: it’s time to move on!

At BLU 2009 we presented on our experience of applying a social constructivist approach through a blended learning course, for 130 first year undergraduate teacher education students at the University of Greenwich. Students' initial responses to blended learning showed positive engagement with the course structure and active involvement in collaborative working and use of formative feedback. Assessment outcomes demonstrated notable improvements in relation to previous cohorts. The case study being presented at this conference explores how students have helped us to move on. We are now using the blended approach in second and third year iterations of this and one other course and have added an expanding range of media and digital resources such as wikis, video information and lecture recordings. The involvement of students has proved an effective tool for change; enabling the move to blended learning across the department. We have become increasingly aware of the importance of maintaining engagement with students throughout the courses to ensure their learning is properly paced and that inconsistencies in the quality and regularity of tutor feedback through online submission are addressed. Staff have identified other limitations such as the lack of a wiki within our VLE and the limited options for online staff/student dialogue through discussion forum. Our findings, coupled with institutional transition to Moodle now act as drivers to embed blended models and enhance learning provision across the programme. As we move from using the VLE as a repository towards a fully fledged blended learning environment, we also move towards our aim of radicalizing the department's approach to teaching, learning and assessment using the students as agents of change. We have learnt from our students; they have told us it is time to move on

Practising What We Preach: Social Constructivism and Course Design

When we teach students, do we always practise what we preach? Do we use what we know about our students, and our discipline, to structure courses and engage and support our learners

Towards self-regulation: breaking the deadlock

How do students learn - through listening and making notes or through engaging in activities and questioning their learning experiences? Teaching is gradually becoming more activity-based, reflecting recent higher education learning theory (eg Biggs 2003). But assessment is too often seen to be the point at which staff and students retreat to the traditional model of ‘tutor knows best’. Students trust their tutors judgements and tutors distrust students’ abilities to make judgements...whilst still expecting them to become ‘self regulated learners’ (Nicol, 2009). In this session tutors and students will together provide details of a case study that aimed to break this deadlock and scaffold students as learners with the confidence and ability to assess, give and receive feedback from their peers (Falchikov 2006) within the first year of an undergraduate degree in primary education. Over a period of three months tutors facilitated students’ analysis of assessment criteria, framing of success criteria and provided models of individual and generic feedback. Students completed a ‘peer assessment’ of their work and evaluated the processes involved. As prospective primary school teachers they considered the experience from the perspectives of ‘learner’ and ‘teacher’. There were three major outcomes from the peer assessment process. Firstly the assessment experience appeared to have a greater impact on students’ engagement with learning than the more passive acceptance of tutor’s written feedback on an assignment. Secondly the students’ reflections demonstrated a high degree of engagement with, and recognition of, the major issues in assessment - validity, reliability and manageability. Thirdly the students were made aware of each other as valuable resources for learning and opportunities for giving and receiving constructive feedback – a critical step towards self regulation

Experts on e-learning: insights gained from listening to the student voice!

The Student Experience of e-Learning Laboratory (SEEL) project at the University of Greenwich was designed to explore and then implement a number of approaches to investigate learners’ experiences of using technology to support their learning. In this paper members of the SEEL team present initial findings from a University-wide survey of nearly a 1000 students. A selection of 90 ‘cameos’, drawn from the survey data, offer further insights into personal perceptions of e-learning and illustrate the diversity of students experiences. The cameos provide a more coherent picture of individual student experience based on the totality of each person’s responses to the questionnaire. Finally, extracts from follow-up case studies, based on interviews with a small number of students, allow us to ‘hear’ the student voice more clearly. Issues arising from an analysis of the data include student preferences for communication and social networking tools, views on the ‘smartness’ of their tutors’ uses of technology and perceptions of the value of e-learning. A primary finding and the focus of this paper, is that students effectively arrive at their own individualised selection, configuration and use of technologies and software that meets their perceived needs. This ‘personalisation’ does not imply that such configurations are the most efficient, nor does it automatically suggest that effective learning is occurring. SEEL reminds us that learners are individuals, who approach learning both with and without technology in their own distinctive ways. Hearing, understanding and responding to the student voice is fundamental in maximising learning effectiveness. Institutions should consider actively developing the capacity of academic staff to advise students on the usefulness of particular online tools and resources in support of learning and consider the potential benefits of building on what students already use in their everyday lives. Given the widespread perception that students tend to be ‘digital natives’ and academic staff ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001), this could represent a considerable cultural challenge

"Practise what we preach": a social constructivist approach to blended learning

This presentation reports on the formal evaluation, through questionnaires, of a new Level 1 undergraduate course, for 130 student teachers, that uses blended learning. The course design seeks to radicalise the department’s approach to teaching, learning and assessment and use students as change agents. Its structure and content, model social constructivist approaches to learning. Building on the student’s experiences of and, reflections on, previous learning, promotes further learning through the support of “able others” (Vygotsky 1978), facilitating and nurturing a secure community of practice for students new to higher education. The course’s design incorporates individual, paired, small and large group activities and exploits online video, audio and text materials. Course units begin and end with face-to-face tutor-led activities. Online elements, including discussions and formative submissions, are tutor-mediated. Students work together face-to-face and online to read articles, write reflections, develop presentations, research and share experiences and resources. Summative joint assignments and peer assessments emphasise the value of collaboration and teamwork for academic, personal and professional development. Initial informal findings are positive, indicating that students have engaged readily with course content and structure, with few reporting difficulties accessing or using technology. Students have welcomed the opportunity to work together to tackle readings in a new genre, pilot presentation skills and receive and give constructive feedback to peers. Course tutors have indicated that depth and quality of study are evident, with regular online formative submissions enabling tutors to identify and engage directly with student’s needs, provide feedback and develop appropriately designed distance and face-to-face teaching materials. Pastoral tutors have indicated that students have reported non-engagement of peers, leading to the rapid application of academic or personal support. Outcomes of the formal evaluation will inform the development of Level 2 and 3 courses and influence the department’s use of blended learning